jschwart at freenet.columbus.oh.us
Fri Jan 20 07:30:49 MST 1995
Is your thought that we ought to stop talking in the extremely rarified air
of abstract philosopphy and discuss concrete cases where some of the
considerations deployed here might actually be shown to make a concrete
difference to a political or economic or social dispute we might have?
On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, boddhisatva wrote:
> To Whom....,
> I would like the group's view of a modest proposal regarding the
> "foundationalism" argument going on. I would say that ideas posited are the
> basis of the trouble here. By posited I mean more than put forth, I mean put
> forth as positive assertions - definitions, theories, theses. I see the
> trouble in dealing with this kind of idea unit in a marxist way (although the
> specifics of the argument are somewhat impalpable for me - please educate).
> I would therefore like to suggest that the identification of conflicts has a
> natural superiority in this kind of discourse as it can be more easily, and
> "scientifically" shown. Since Marx's genius was the identification of
> central conflict, it seems very reasonable to base Marxian dialogue on that,
> rather than the forwarding of "positive" ideas,which then must be argued. It
> seems to me that the Marxist does best to suggest the most structurally
> complete way of resolving clearly identified conflicts, rather than
> forwarding concepts which require definition (those would seem to me to
> necessarily be positive assertions rather than reactions to negatives).
> Since I may be jumbling terms that have specific meanings in this
> milieu, I'll conclude with a simplification. I would say that I am looking
> towards the difference between saying "This is the important dynamic in X
> part of the social order, thus, logically a derivative of X should be the
> solution" and saying "This inherent conflict can be identified by Y
> unhappiness, and it would seem that integrating this function of Y would
> ameliorate that difficulty, as suggested by this scenario". The real
> characteristic of the second approach is limiting the solution (necessarily
> some sort of theoretical model) to a conflict that is "scientifically"
> identifiable. This allows later discussion to return to the solid base of
> identified conflicts at the very least.
More information about the Marxism